Vygotsky's zone of proximaldevelopment: Rethinking its

instructional implicationsLUIS C. MOLL

University of Arizona

JiAbstract

This paper proposes an alternate model of Vygotsky's zone of proximal development. It isargued that conceptions of the •zone» emphasiztng the transfer of skills from adult to childare too narrow, theoretically misleading, and of limited instructional utility. The concept isthen examined in relation to Vygotsky's broader theoretical and practica! concerns. Examplestaken from a recent classroom observational study are provided to illustrate how the conceptof the zone can facilitate a critical assessment of children and of the social system created forthe children to learn. The focus is on the appropriation and mastery of mediational means,such as writing, assessed not only or necessarzly through independent performance after guidedpractice, but by the ability of children to partzcipate in qualitatively new collaborative activi-cies. The role of the adult zsn't to provide structured cues to facilitate performance, but throughexploratory talk and other social mediations assist children in taking control of their own lear-ning. The concern is not only with creating individual zones of proximal development, but co-llective, interrelated zones as part of a teaching system.

Keywords: Zone of Proximal Development, Vygotsky's theory, Literacy acquisition.

La Zona de Desarrollo Próximo de Vygotski: Unareconsideración de sus implicaciones para la

enseñanza

ResumenEste artículo propone un modelo alternativo a la zona de desarrollo próximo a Vygotski.

Se arguye que las concepciones sobre la «zona» que hacen hincapié en la transferencia de des-trezas del adulto al niño son demasiado restringidas, teóricamente confusas y de una utilidadinstruccional limitada. El concepto es contemplado aquí en relación con las preocupaciones teó-ricas y prácticas más amplias de Vygotski. Se aportan ejemplos tomados de un reciente estudioobservacional en el aula que ilustran cómo el concepto de Zona puede facilitar una evaluacióncrítica del niño y del sistema social creado para que el niño aprenda. Se resalta la apropiacióny el dominio de los instrumentos mediacionales, como la escritura, que se evalúa no sólo o nonecesariamente a través de la ejecución independiente tras la práctica guiada, sino por la ca-pacidad del niño para participar en actividades cualitativamente nuevas. El papel del adultono es el de aportar claves estructuradas para facilitar la ejecución, sino ayudar al niño median-te el habla y otras mediaciones sociales a adquirir el control de su propio aprendizaje. No setrata tanto de crear zonas individuales de desarrollo próximo, sino de crear zonas colectivasinterrelacionadas, como parte del sistema de enseñanza.

Palabras clave: Zona de Desarrollo Próximo, Teoría de Vygotski, Adquisición de la lectoescri-tura.

C) 1990 by Aprendizaje, ISSN: 0210-3702 Infancia y Aprendizaje, 1990, 50-51, 157-168

158Thought is not only mediated externally by signs.

It is mediated internally by meanings.L. S. Vygotsky (1987; p. 282)

The publication in 1978 of an edited collection of Vygotsky's writings,under the title Mind in Society, has served as a catalyst for the introduction(or the re-discovery) of his ideas into the contemporary field of psycho-logy. The same volunie served to introduce Vygotsky to many educators,particularly his concept of the «zone of proximal development» (Vygotsky,1978, Ch. 6; also see, Rogoff & Wertsch, 1986). Since the publication ofthe aforementioned volume, Vygotsky's theory has flourished, and hisname has achieved prominence, particularly in developmental and educa-tional psychology (see, e.g., Minick, 1985; Riviére, 1984; Vygotsky, 1987;Wertsch, 1985, 1986).

The «zone» is an attractive and clever idea. In brief, as Minick (in press)has explained, it addresses the issue that children differ in their current sta-te of development in ways that cannot be assessed readily by techniquesthat analyze their performance when they are working alone (p. 8). Thatis, assessing a child's unaided performance will not «tap important diffe-rences in mental functioning that can be identified by analyzing how thechild responds to assistance from adults or more capable peers» (p. 6).Vygotsky developed the concept of the zone as a critique and alternativeto static, individual testing, namely IQ testing. He claimed that static mea-sures assess mental functioning which has already matured, fossilized, touse Vygotsky's term (1978); developing mental functions must be assessedthrough collaborative not independent or isolated activities. He posited thatwhat children can do collaboratively or with help today, they can do in-dependently and competently tomorrow; as Cazden (1980) put it, a goalof the zone is to facilitate «performance before competence».

Vygotsky (1978, Ch. 6; 1987, Ch. 6) proposed differentiating two le-veis of development in the child: the actual developmental level which re-fers to individual performance or problem solving, and the more advancedproximal level which refers to aided performance or problem solving. Hedefined the zone of proximal development as the contrast between aidedand unaided performance. In an oft quoted statement, Vygotsky (1978)wrote as follows: the zone is «the distance between the actual developmen-tal level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of po-tential development as determined through problem solving under adultguidance or in collaboration with more capable peers» (p. 86). The actualdevelopmental leve!, he wrote, characterizes mental development retros-pectively; the proximal level characterizes mental development prospecti-vely (pp. 86-87). With the help of others, the child's the proximal level to-day becomes the actual developmental level tomorrow.

Vygostky specified at least two important, interrelated, instructional im-plications from his concept of the zone. One is that effective instructionmust be prospective; is must be aimed at a child's proximal level of deve-lopment, or as he called it «the upper threshold of instruction» (1987,p. 211). Teachers, Vygotsky suggested, must orient their work «not on yes-terday's development in the child but on tomorrow's» (p. 211). A secondimplication is that what a child performs collaboratively or with assitance,the child will later perform independently. Vygotsky was suggesting that

159in creating a zone of proximal development we're helping define the child'simmediate, future learning. He indicated that the same mediational means(means of assistance) used interpersonally would be internalized and trans-formed by the child and used intrapersonally (Vygotsky, 1978). As such,central to the zone of proximal development are the characteristics of thecollaborations that create the proximal level and define the parameters forthe child' future, independent performance.

In what follows, I first examine current applications of the concept ofthe zone to classroom instruction. argue that there are serious difficul-ties in abiding by the limits imposed by Vygotsky's basic but restrictive de-finition of the zone as providing assisted performance to children. The maindifficulty is assuming uncritically that current instructional practices mayaptly represent models of the zone. then propose an alternative modelof the zone based on instructional practices that emphasize not the transferof skills from adult to child, but the development of meaning. As sugges-ted by the opening quote, meaning as well as sign and tool use are essentialcomponents of Vygotsky' view of thinking and must be considered centralto any conception of the zone of proximal development.

THE ZONE IN THE CLASSROOM

For the past few years we have been applying Vygotskian concepts, es-pecially that of the zone of proximal development, in our study of class-room practices with Hispanic children (see, e.g., Moll, 1989; Moll & Díaz,R., 1987; Moll & Díaz, S., 1987). Curiously, despite the obvious relevanceof Vygotsky's work to instructional practice, and the major role Vygotskyassigned formal schooling in his developmental theory (see, e.g., Vygotsky,1987, Ch. 6), there are few applications of his work to the classroom (ho-wever, see Markova, 1979; Talyzina, 1981). For example, in a recent volu-me devoted to the zone of proximal development (Rogoff & Wertsch,1984), only one article addressed issues directly relevant to classroom prac-tice (Griffin & Cole, 1984). Similarly, in another major volume devoted toVygotsky (Wertsch, 1985), one article, examining peer interactions, was de-voted to classroom instruction (Forman & Cazden, 1985). Nonetheless, ot-her studies have used Vygotskian concepts to analyze specific aspects ofpractice, such as teachers self-regulation and thinking (Gallimore, Dalton &Tharp, 1986), teacher explanations (Roehler & Duffy, 1986), students' pri-vate speech and task performance (Berk, 1986), reading assessment (Braun,Rennie & Gordon, 1987), and math instruction (Henderson, 1986).

The research mentioned abo ye is usually critical of existing instruction.For example, Henderson (1986) suggested that current mathematics ins-truction, as characterized by presentations to large groups and by indivi-dualized instruction dominated by worksheets, is incompatible withVygotsky's socially oriented perspective, particularly with the concept ofthe zone. We have reached a similar conclusion about reading and writinginstruction, especially as it relates to the schooling of Hispanic children inthe United States (see, e.g., Díaz, Moll & Mehan, 1986; Mol!, 1988; seealso Cole & Griffin, 1983).

Griffin and Cole (1984) propose expanding our understanding of the

160zone as merely a response to inappropriate assessment measures. They sug-gest that «English-speaking scholars interpret the concept more narrowlythan Vygotsky intended, robbing it of some of its potential for enablingus to understand the social genesis of human cognitive processes and theprocess of teaching and learning in particular» (p. 45). Our work also sug-gest that to enhance a critique of instruction and develop feasible strategiesfor educational change, we must surpass current definitions and uses of thezone (Moll, 1989). For example, a problem in applying the concept of thezone to the analysis of classroom instruction is that the basic definition ofthe zone, emphasizing the transfer of knowledge, and especially of skills,by those knowing more to those knowing less, may characterize virtuallyany instructional practice. Consider the following three characteristic ofthe zone derived from the summary provided abo ye. The zone is:

1. Establishing a level of difficulty: this level, assumed to be the proxi-mal level, must be a bit challenging for the student but not too difficult.

2. Providing assisted performance: the adult provides guided practiceto the child with a clear sense of the goal or outcome of the child's perfor-mance.

3. Evaluating independent performance: the most logical outcome ofa zone of proximal development is the child performing independently.

It is misleading to assume that classroom activities containing these threecharacteristics represent zones of proximal development. Is its very easy togo from Vygotsky's basic definition and discussion of the zone to belie-ving that the rote, drill and practice instruction offered working class stu-dents (see, e.g., Anyon, 1980) is a reasonable example of a zone of proxi-mal development. After al!, rote instruction is usually meant to provide stu-dents with assistance in developing skills they do not have and the end-re-sult is often some individual evaluation or test of learning. The same couldbe said about the atomistic, skills-based practices which characterize mostclassroom instruction (see, e.g. Goodlad, 1984). Standard instructionalpractices do not represent what Vygotsky meant by a zone of proximal de-velopment. As Valsiner (1988) has suggested, «... for Vygotsky, the exam-ple of comparison of the child's actual and assisted performances on sometest served only as a means to get across to his pedagogically-minded lis-teners (and readers) a more basic theoretical message. That basic messagewas the interdependence of the process of child development and the sociallyprovided resources for that development» (p. 145, emphasis in original). Be-low we discuss an alternative model of the zone in une with Vygotsky'smore general theoretical thinking and intended to develop more fully theconcept's pedagogical potential.

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

To clarify why an alternative model of the zone is necessary, I will firstdiscuss three aspects of Vygotsky's theory that I believe essential to un-derstanding his zone of proximal development. These aspects are also im-portant in considering the instructional implications of the concept (for ad-

161ditional discussions, see Griffin & Cole, 1984; Minick, in press; Valsiner,1988; Wertsch, 1984).

Analysis by units. A neglected aspect of Vygotsky's theory, particularlyas it relates to applications of the zone, is his warning against atomistic, re-ductionist approaches (see, Vygotsky, 1987, Ch. 1). He argued against re-ducing the phenomenon of interest, whatever it may be, into separate ele-ments studied in isolation:

«This mode of analysis can be compared with a chemical analysis of wa-ter in which water is decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen. The essentialfeatures of this from of analysys is that its products are of a different na-ture than the whole from which they were derived. The elements lack thecharacteristics inherent in the whole and have properties that it did not pos-sess. When one approaches the problem of thinking and speech by decom-posing it into its elements, one adopts the strategy of the man who resortsto the decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen in his search fora scientific explanation of the characteristics of water, its capacity to extin-guish fire... for example. This man will discover, to his chagrin, that hydro-gen burns and oxygen sustains combustion. He will never succeed in ex-plaining the characteristics of the whole by analyzing the characteristics ofits elements» (p. 45).

Instead, Vygotsky insisted on the dialectical study of what we couldcal! «whole activities». For example, he wrote as follows:

«... a psychology that decomposes verbal thinking into its elements inan attempt to explain its characteristics will search in vain for the unity thatis characteristic of the whole. These characteristics are inherent in the phe-nomenon only as a unified whole. Therefore, when the whole is analyzedinto its elements, these characteristics evaporate. In his attempt to recons-truct these characteristics, the investigator is left with no alternative but tosearch for external, mechanical forces of interaction between elements»(Vygotsky, 1987, p. 45).

Vygotsky proposed partitioning the whole into what he called units(see, Vygotsky, 1987, Ch. 1; Valsiner, 1988; Wertsch, 1985; Ch. 7). In con-trast to atomistic elements, units designated a product of analysis that hadall the basic characteristics of the whole. The unit, then, is an importantand irreducible part of the whole. As Bakhurst (1986) has suggested, pa-raphrasing Vygotsky (1987, p. 46), in the «water analogy the H 20 mole-cule, and not the properties of hydrogen and oxygen considered separa-tely, should be taken as the unit of analysis when attempting to explain wa-ter's propensity to extinguish fire» (p. 110). Vygotsky rejected artificial di-visions and abstractions and insisted on what we'd call a holistic approach:the unit of study must be pshychological activity in all its complexity, notin isolation. Wertsch (1985) has noted that the unit of study «could not bederived through artificial divisions or abstractions of real psychological ac-tivity. It had to be a microcosm of the complex interfunctional processesthat characterize actual psychological activity» (p. 185).

It is important to relate this proposal to the concept of the zone ofproximal development. One way is to reject conceptualizing the zone asthe teaching or assessment of discrete, separable, skills and subskills. Coleand Griffin (1983) have pointed out that from a Vygotskian or socio-his-torical perspective «we should be trying to instantiate a basic activity when

162teaching reading and not get blinded by the basic skills. Skills are alwayspart of activities and settings, but they only take on meaning in terms ofhow they are organized. So, instead of basic skills, a socio-historical ap-proach talks about basic activities and instantiates those that are necessaryand sufficient to carry out the whole process of reading in the general con-ditions of learning» (p. 73, emphases in original). The same point appliesto the teaching of writing or other subject matter (see, Moll, 1989; for acompatible perspective see, Goodman, Smith, Meredith, & Goodman,1987). By focusing on isolated skills and subskills, the essence of readingor writing, or of mathematics, as a «whole activity» evaporates, to useVygotsky's metaphor.

It's easy to miss this point when applying the concept of the zone tothe study of classroom instruction because an atomistic, «skills» perspec-tive is so pervasive that, as Edelsky (1986) has pointed out, it is taken forgranted that reading and writing skills and sub-skills are accurate or aut-hentic instantiations of literacy.

Mediation. Vygotsky placed great emphasis on the nature of interac-tions between adult and child, particularly as it relates to formal instruc-tion. He wrote about the «unique form of cooperation between the childand the adult that is the central element of the educational process», andhow by this interactional process «knowledge is transfered to the child ina definite system» (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 169). By a «definite system»,Vygotsky was referring to the social organization of instruction. He men-tioned those «sensitive» or optimal periods in which instruction is maxi-mally productive and how the concept of the zone provides us with thepotential to identify these periods (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 212). However, incontrast to other theorists who sought a biological bases for those sensitiveperiods, Vygotsky proposed that they were associated with social and cul-tural processes, with collaboration and instruction. Central to his conceptof the zone, then, are the specific ways that adults (or peers) socially me-diate or interactionally create circumstances for learning.

The aboye suggest that it is incorrect to think of the zone solely as acharacteristic of the child or of the teaching, but of the child engaged incollaborative activity within specific social environments. The focus is onthe social system within which we hope children learn, with the unders-tanding that this social system is mutually and actively created by teacherand students. Central to a Vygotskian analysis of teaching is recognizinghow the adult, through the mechanism of social interactions, creates andregulates those social systems for learning that we call lessons.

As several authors have noted (e.g., Wertsch, 1984), Vygotsky neverspecified these forms of social assistance to the learner within a zone ofproximal development. He wrote (Vygotsky, 1987; p. 209) about collabo-ration and direction, and about helping children «through demostration,leading questions, and by introducing the initial elements of the task's so-lution», but did not specify further. However, it is clear that he consideredcentral to his analysis what we'd now call the characteristics of classroomdiscourse (see, Cazden, 1988). Vygotsky (1981) claimed that the intellec-tual skills children acquire are directly related to how they interact with ot-hers in specific problem-solving environments. He posited that children in-ternalize and transform the help they receive from others and subsequently

163use these same means of guidance to direct their own problem-solving be-haviors. Thus, we can consider the study of social transactions as a key toa zone of proximal development analysis.

Vygotsky also emphasized that social interactions are themselves me-diated. Humans use cultural signs and tools (e.g., speech, literacy, mathe-matics) to mediate their interactions with each other and with their surroun-dings. A fundamental property of these artifacts, Vygotsky observed, isthat they are social in origin. They're used first to communicate with ot-hers, to mediate contact with the social world; later, with practice, muchof it occurring in schools, these artifacts come to mediate our interactionswith self, to help us think, we internalize their use (see, e.g., Vygotsky,1978, Ch. 1-4; Wertsch, 1985, Ch. 2-4). Therefore, from a Vygotskian pers-pective, a major role of schooling is to create social contexts for masteryof and conscious awareness in the use of these cultural tools. It's by mas-tering these technologies of representation and communication (Olson,1986) that individuals acquire the capacity, the means, for «higher order»intellectual activity. Vygotskian theory posits a strong, dialectic connectionbetween external (social), practical activity mediated by cultural tools, suchas speech and writing, and individuals' intellectual activity. As Wertsch(1985) has written, Vygotsky «defined external activity in terms or semio-tically mediated social processes and argued that the properties of these pro-cesses provide the key to understanding the emergence of internal functio-ning» (p. 62).

Change. The most common way to conceptualize change within azone of proximal development is as individual change: the child can do so-mething independently today that he could do yesterday only with help.It is, in part, Vygotsky's examples that have led to this formulation. Forexample, he wrote, «What lies in the zone of proximal development at onestage is realized and moves to the level of actual development at a second.In other words, what the child is able to do in collaboration today he willbe able to do independently tomorrow» (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 211).

As Minick (in press) has emphasized, however, Vygotsky was concer-ned with the qualitative assessment of psychological processes and thedynamics of development. The essence of zone of proximal developmentconcept is the qualitatively different perspective one obtains by contrastinga student's performance alone with his or her performance in collaborativeactivity. He also used the zone to emphasize the importance of social con-ditions in understanding thinking and its development (Vygotsky, 1978,1987; Wertsch, 1985). Hence, he viewed thinking not as characteristic ofthe child only, but of the child-in-social-activities with others (Minick,1985). In terms of classroom learning, as mentioned aboye, Vygotsky spe-cifically emphasized the relationship between thinking and the social orga-nization of instruction. That is why the zone of proximal development isof great theoretical interest: it provides a unit of analysis that integratesdynamically the individual and the social environment.

I want to suggest, based on Vygotsky's qualitative emphasis, an exten-sion to assessing change within the zone of proximal development. The fo-cus would be on the appropriation and mastery of mediational means, suchas writing, assessed not only or necessarily through independent perfor-mance after guided practice, but by the ability of the child to participate

164in qualitatively new collaborative activities. The focus, therefore, is not ontransferring skills, as such, but on the collaborative use of mediationalmeans to create, obtain and communicate meaning. The role of the adultisn't necesarily to provide structured cues, but through exploratory talkand other social mediations assists children in appropriating or taking con-trol of their own learning. The goal is to make children consciously awareof how they are manipulating the literacy process and applying this know-ledge to re-organize future experiences or activities. The emphasis, then,isn't on transmitting knowledge or skills in pre-packaged forms in the hopethat these skills will be intenalized in the form transmited. The emphasisis on the interaction between tool use and meaning alluded to in the ope-ning quote. This perspective is consistent with what Vygotsky (1987, Ch. 6)felt was the essential characteristic of school instruction: the introductionof conscious awareness into many domains of activity; that is, children ac-quiring control and mastery of psychological processes through the mani-pulation of tools of thinking such as reading and writing. As Bruner (1986,p. 132) has put it, it is this «loan of consciousness» that gets childrenthrough the zone of proximal development.

In the examples provided below, I will illustrate how some teacherscreate and mediate the type of social system in their classrooms that leadsto this «loan of consciousness».

ZONES FOR LEARNING

The examples presented below are taken from classroom observationsconducted in schools located in a major Southwestern city in the UnitedStates (Moll, 1988). The teachers followed what is know as a «Whole Lan-guage» approach (see, e.g., Edelsky, Draper & Smith, 1983; Goodman,1986; Goodman et al., 1987). Central to this approach is a view of literacyas the understanding and communication of meaning. A major instructio-nal goal of the teachers was to make their classrooms literate environmentsin which many language experiences could happen and different types of«literacies» could be practiced, understood and learned. This approach re-jects reducing reading and writing into skill sequences taught in isolationor in a successive, stage-like manner. Rather, it emphasizes the creation ofsocial contexts in which children learn to use, try, and manipulate langua-ge in the service of making sense or creating meaning. As Goodman et al.put it: «Oral language is learned holistically in the context of speech acts;written language is learned holistically in the context of literacy events»(p. 398). These «events» consists of a series of interrelated but diverse lear-ning activities, usually organized around a specific theme or topic.

The role of the teacher, in these social contexts is to provide the neces-sary guidance, mediations, in a Vygotskian sense, so that children, throughtheir own efforts, assume full control of diverse purposes and uses of oraland written language. Reading and writing occurred in many ways, andthey were usually integrated as part of a broader activity: for example, rea-ding individually, being read to, or reading to prepare a report; or, writingto prepare a project, writing for fun, or writing in journals and logs. Eachof these activities represented a social situation where the teacher could as-

165sess children's performance, the type of help they needed, and whether thechildren were taking over the activity, making in their own. What Good-man et al. (1987) refer to as events, then, provide us with an useful, holis-tic unit of study for the understanding of the zone of proximal develop-ment.

Mediating meaning. The most prominent characteristics of these class-rooms was not the transfer of specific skills, but the constant emphasis oncreating meaning. Every observation we collected had notations of the tea-cher's efforts at clarifying, expanding and monitoring the students' unders-tanding of the activities and tasks. This making of meaning permeated everyinstructional activity in these classrooms, regardless of topic, theme or pur-pose (see, Mol!, 1988).

There are three aspects of the instructional activities that 1 want to ela-borate as examples of zones of proximal development. First, how compre-hension was always the primary goal of reading. Second, how these tea-chers helped the students understand, make sense, of strategies authors usedto convey meaning. Third, how the teachers encouraged the children toapply to their own writing what they were learning in analyzing texts.

These teachers emphasized comprehension as the goal of reading. Theyrejected drills that disassembled reading into essential components and usedonly trade books, no basal readers. Their reading lessons consisted of dis-cussions about the text and its meaning, including how the students feltabout the characters and why, and predictions about what would happennext. Consider the following example taken from a 5th grade reading les-son. The students have been reading a novel about the U. S. revolutionarywar. The teacher assembles seven students to discuss the text. The studentsrepresent a variety of reading abilities and are grouped here because of theirinterest on the topic. The teacher starts by summarizing the different so-cial relationships central to the novel.

T: «We have two relationships here». «We're following, haven't we,Tim and the father, Tim and Sam, and there's also a bigger conflict like in(another book they read). We've got personal relationships, but our bigconflict going on are the British and the patriots».

After a brief comment to the students, she elaborated:

T: «You've got this conflict going on in the story. One is a society con-flict, a whole group of people against another group of people. We havepersonal relationships going on: Tim and his father, Tim and Sam, actuallywe also have the relationship of...»

S: «Sam and his father».T: «Sam and his father, you bet. So all of these different, various con-

flicts. This is why this book is hard, that's why a lot of kids your age don'tlike to read this book (because it's difficult).

Following this summary of the text, the students and the teacher dis-cussed several themes found in the story, including women's role in so-ciety, the ambivalence of the characters regarding the war, family discipli-ne and conflict, religious beliefs, and ways of understanding historythrough reading novels and through social studies lessons. Some childrenquoted passages from the text to clarify their points and some introducespersonal experiences similar to events depicted in the story. Throughout,

166the lesson's focus was on extending the students' understanding of the textand analyzing the substantive issues presented.

Through their questioning, the teachers made the students examine thewriter's strategies in some depth, especially how writers manipulate words,phrases, descriptions or dialogue to influence readers. In the next example,the story being read is about a panther that kills a little boy's (Lonny) dog.The teacher asked the group to predict upcoming events.

1. Mary: I think Lonny is going to kill the cat.2. John: I think Lonny is not going to kill the cat...3. Barb: The reason why he is not going to kill the cat is because she

has babies.4. Juan: I think that he's going to kill the panther and his dad is going

to help him. (Other children give their opinion what whether Lonny isgoing to kill the panther.)

5. Teacher: (interrupting) I just want to explain what we just did inthe group. [Moll, 1989].

The teacher points out that Mary (the first student to respond) offeredthe prediction that the panther would be killed, and that other studentsalso shared what they felt would happen to the panther. The teacher thenemphasized to the group that as readers we're always predicting. The chil-dren nodded affirmatively.

The teacher continued the lesson by asking: «We've been predictingwhat will happen, how about anything else? About the author or somet-hing that struck you about the story?» Roberto raised his hand and saidthat he liked the way the writer described the dog's death because he could«see» exactly how it happened and «see» the wound in the dog. Manuelsaid that he could feel the sadness because Lonny's tears were dropping onthe dog's body.

The teacher's questioning made the children aware of writing strategies.She encouraged the children to develop their own strategies and borrowstrategies from authors to use in their own writing. The next example illus-trates how the children used in writing what they were learning in reading.The teacher asked the class if anyone wanted to share their writing, a rou-tine that formed part of the students' writing activities. Lisa and Ernestovolunteered and the rest of the class moved to the front of the room. Theteacher asked Lisa to read first and asked her, «Why are you doing this?»Lisa responded, «To see if it (the piece she's written» is o.k.» Lisa thenread a fairly lengthy story. After she was done reading, the teacher asked,«What worked well?» Lisa's classmates responded that she introduced hercharacters by providing a physical description and used the dialogue wellto describe the characters' thoughts. Another student commented that shedidn't start the story with the typical «Once upon a time...» but with «Thebus was coming...», a more interesting introduction. Two other studentscommented that by having her characters use different languages (Spanishand English) Lisa interested her readers and helped define her characters.

Most of the students' comments occurred with limited prompting bythe teacher. The children were used to commenting on writing by pointingout strategies used by authors, including themselves. Our analysis suggestthat by making reading and writing part of the same general literacy event,the analysis of text, the teacher helped the students consciously generalize

167strategies from reading to writing. As such, the children could display invarious ways and in different situations how they were mastering literacy.

DISCUSSION

The concept of the zone of proximal development must be understoodand applied in terms of Vygotsky's broader theory. Central to this conceptis the social character of learning. We've argued that the zone facilitates acritical assessment of the children and of the social system created for thechildren to learn. Applications of the zone to classroom instruction, the-refore, must exceed the interpretation of didactic practices which stress thetransfer of skills from adult to child. Instead, it should lead us to explorehow to create instructional circumstances in which children consciouslyapply what they're learning to deal with novel and more advanced activi-ties. This emphasis is fully consistent with Vygotsky's thinking (see,Vygotsky, 1987).

Participants in a classroom function within a system of meaning. Theexamples cited aboye are atypical in that the lessons were not based on ahierarchy or sequence of skills. The emphasis was not on determining howwell children were able to assimilate help that is transmitted by the adult.Instead the emphasis was on the re-creation of meaning: on how well chil-dren were able, with the support of the teacher, to make knowledge theirown and use this knowledge to transform other learning situations. As such,in our interpretation, the concern was not only with creating individual zo-nes of proximal development, but collective, interrelated zones as part ofa teaching system. The curriculum was learned through different types ofsocial relationships that teachers facilitated. Teachers re-organized instruc-tion to engage students or to give them practice with different aspects ofthe process. The teachers qualitative assessment of children's performancein different contexts guided their modifications of lessons, it guided thechanges in the zones, in such a system the children develop what Bruner(1986) calls «reflective intervention» in the knowledge encountered; the abi-lity to control select knowledge as needed (p. 132). Within zones of proxi-mal development children become collaborators in knowledge making aswell as conscious recipients of knowledge transmission (p. 127).

ReferencesBAKHURST, D. J. (1986). Thought, speech and the genesis of meaning: On the 50th anniver-

sary of Vygotsky's Myslenie i Rec' [Speech and Thinkingi Studies in Soviet Thought, 31,102-129.

BRUNER, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.BERK, L. (1986). Relationship of elementary school children's private speech to behavioral ac-

companiment to task, attention, and task performance. Developmental Psychology, 22(5),671-680.

BRAUN, C., RENNIE, B. & GORDON, C. (1987). Journal of Educational Research, 80(5),283-289.

CAZDEN, C. (1988). Classroom discouse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.COLE, M. & GRIFFIN, P. (1983). A socio-historical approach to re-mediation. Quarterly News-

letter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 5(4), 69-74.DÍAZ, S., MOLL, L. C. & MEHAN, H. (1986). Sociocultural resources in instruction: a con-

168text-specific approach. In California State Department of Education, Beyond Language:Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority children (pp. 187-230). Los An-geles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.

EDELSKY, C. (1986). Writing in a bilingual program: Había una vez. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.EDELSKY, C., DRAPER, K. & SMITFI, K. (1983). Hookin' Em in at the start of school in a Who-

le Language classroom. Antropology and Education Quarterly, 4, 257-281.FORMAN, E. & CAZDEN, C. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: the cog-

nitive value of peer interactions. In J. Y. Wertsch (ed.) (1985). Culture, communicationand cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323-347). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

GALLIMORE, R., DALTON, S. & THARP, R. (1986). Self-regulation and interactive teaching:The effects of teaching conditions on teachers' cognitive activity. The Elernentary SchoolJournal, 86(3), 613-631.

GOODLAD, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.GOODMAN, K. (1986). What's whole in Whole Language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.GOODMAN, K. S., SMITH, E. B., MEREDITH, R. & GOODMAN, Y. M. (1987). Language and

Thinking in school: A r.vhole-language curriculum. New York: Richard Owen.GRIFFIN, P. & COLE, M. (1984). Current activity for the future: The Zo-ped. In B. Rogoff

& J. Wertsch (eds.), Children's learning zn the «Zone of proximal development»(pp. 45-64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

HEATH, S. B. (1986). Sociocultural contexts of language development. En California State De-partment of Education, Beyond Language: Social and cultural factors in schooling langua-ge minority children (pp. 143-186). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assess-ment Center, California State University.

MARKOVA, A. K. (1979). The teaching and mastery of language. White Plains, NY: M. E.Sharpe.

MIN1CK, N. (1985). L. S. Vygotsky and Soviet actitity theory: New perspectives on the rela-tionship between mind and soczety. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern Uni-versity.

MIN1CK, N. (In press). Implications of Vygotsky's theories for dynamic assessment. In C. S.Lidz (ed.), Foundations of dynamic assessment. New York: Gilford

MOLL, L. C. (1989). Teaching second-language students: A Vygotskian perspective. InD. Johnson & D. Roen (eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 55-69).New York: Longman.

MOLL, L. C. (1988). Key issues in teaching Latino students. Language Arts, 65(5), 465-472.MOLL, L. C. & DÍAZ, R. (1987). Teaching writing as communication: The use of ethnograp-

hic findings in classroom practice (pp. 195-221). In D. Bloome (ed.), Literacy and schoo-ling (pp. 55-65). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

MOLL, L. C. & DÍAZ, S. (1987). Change as the goal of educational research. Anthropologyand Education Quarterly, 18(4), 300-311.

OLSON, D. (1986). Intelligence and literacy: The relationship between intelligence and thetechnologies of representation and communication. In R. Sternberg & R. Wagner (eds.),Practical intelligence: nature and orilins of competence in the everyday world(pp. 338-360). New York: Cambridge University Press.

RIV1ÉRE, A. (1984). La psicología de Vygotsky [The psychology of Vygotsky]. Infancia yAprendizaje, 27-28(3-4); 7-86.

ROEHLER, L. & DUFFY, G. (1986). What makes on teacher a better explainer than another.Journal of Education for Teaching, 12(3), 273-284.

ROGOFF, B. & WERTSCH, J. (eds.) (1984). Children's learning in the «Zone of proximal de-velopment» (pp. 7-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

TALYZINA, N. (1981). The psychology of learning. Moscow: Progress Publishers.VALS1NER, J. (1988). Developmental psychology in the Soviet Union. Sussex, Great Britain:

The Harvester Press.VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.), The

concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). White Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe.VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1987). Speech and Thinking. In L. S. Vygotsky, Collected Works, Vol. 1

(pp. 39-285). R. Rieber & A. Carton (eds.), Minick, N., Tr. New York: Plenum.WERTSCH, J. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: some conceptual issues. In B. Ro-

goff & J. Wertsch (eds.), Children's learning in the «Zone of proximal development,(pp. 7-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

WERTSCH, J. V. (1985a). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press.

WERTSCH, J. V. (Ed.) (19856). Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspecti-ves. New York: Cambridge University Press.